Failed Lifters

[bgbdwlf2500]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 3:59 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

So what do ya think is worse? Saying it's so. Believing it's so or repeating it? 

the main point I was trying to make with his comment is that he may be right, but only because people are going to draw out oil changes to 8, 10 12k miles. I use synthetic and still change it at 3k. as I said in my post now they've released an oil that's "good for a year" and there will be plenty of people that will believe it, I am not one of those people. changing oil is cheap insurance and is quick and easy, but slightly messy to do. the oil filter location could have been thought out a little more for sure 

[KARNUT]

Unfortunately the people who will find our are the third and up owners who paid 5-7 K for 100-150 K mile truck or SUV. They’ll be thinking that they’ll get 200-250 K miles out of them like they did with previous non cylinder deactivation engines. They’ll limp them around with the check engine light on till they wouldn’t pass inspection. Then we’ll start seeing more used Toyota’s and Honda’s on the road and the resale value of used GMs will tank. The seventies all over again. Speculation of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[diyer2]

10 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Then I gather from the composite of all your post that we are dealing with a fairly low occurrence situation. 'I'm in Ford country' and 'mine (2007 ?) failed' indicate you've repaired two (?) or few (?) Given the unit sales over the LS/Ecotec3 run in your area alone that isn't allot is it?  

 

You state in another post that after a fix it stays fixed and assign it to poor assembly practice.  Thus repair parts are obviously improved in any number of ways which indicates this is not in fact a design issue but a QC issue. Man is incapable of making anything with zero defects. Even NASA blows up a crew now and again. Perfection is God's territory. 

 

"Lifter failure" doesn't say much. We never learn if this is an excessive leakage (plunger) issue. A plunger sticking issue.  A roller or roller bearing/pin failure. A locator failure. Each has it's own root cause. QC failed to control clearances. QC failed to catch heat treat issues. Design failed to engineer effectively although it seems ruled out in the 'stays fixed' statement if there is no visible difference. 

 

At this point I'm going to toss two cents on the table in question form and refrain from making a conclusion. When did GM routinely start using 207 F thermostats with a +/- of 3 F as standard issue? What happens to oil temperature when water temperatures are that hot? What happens to a liquids viscosity when heated? What is the upper temperature spec for SAE viscosity testing? Does the oil temperature exceed the SAE upper limit? If so by what degree? What is the viscosity at that temperature? What happens to boundary layer lubrication at excessive temperatures? What lubrication mode is in play in a plunger lifter? What happens to film strength at elevated temperatures? What prevents even hardened materials from failing in close contact at extreme pressures and loads? What happens to even good oils at elevated temperatures? Does it leave a residue? Will it affect a clearance?  Does it matter if it is stuck collapsed or bleeds collapsed? Why isn't common sense common? Did I hint at multiple failure modes? Is there anything an owner can do about any of this? 

 

 

I think today's oils s can take the heat.

What can we do?

IMO shorter oil change intervals than the DIC or 15 k mile oil.

The interval IMO no more than 5 k miles.

I'll do 3 k mile intervals. My oil and filters are cheap insurance.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by diyer2

[Jsdirt]

10 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Then I gather from the composite of all your post that we are dealing with a fairly low occurrence situation. 'I'm in Ford country' and 'mine (2007 ?) failed' indicate you've repaired two (?) or few (?) Given the unit sales over the LS/Ecotec3 run in your area alone that isn't allot is it?  

 

You state in another post that after a fix it stays fixed and assign it to poor assembly practice.  Thus repair parts are obviously improved in any number of ways which indicates this is not in fact a design issue but a QC issue. Man is incapable of making anything with zero defects. Even NASA blows up a crew now and again. Perfection is God's territory. 

 

"Lifter failure" doesn't say much. We never learn if this is an excessive leakage (plunger) issue. A plunger sticking issue.  A roller or roller bearing/pin failure. A locator failure. Each has it's own root cause. QC failed to control clearances. QC failed to catch heat treat issues. Design failed to engineer effectively although it seems ruled out in the 'stays fixed' statement if there is no visible difference. 

 

At this point I'm going to toss two cents on the table in question form and refrain from making a conclusion. When did GM routinely start using 207 F thermostats with a +/- of 3 F as standard issue? What happens to oil temperature when water temperatures are that hot? What happens to a liquids viscosity when heated? What is the upper temperature spec for SAE viscosity testing? Does the oil temperature exceed the SAE upper limit? If so by what degree? What is the viscosity at that temperature? What happens to boundary layer lubrication at excessive temperatures? What lubrication mode is in play in a plunger lifter? What happens to film strength at elevated temperatures? What prevents even hardened materials from failing in close contact at extreme pressures and loads? What happens to even good oils at elevated temperatures? Does it leave a residue? Will it affect a clearance?  Does it matter if it is stuck collapsed or bleeds collapsed? Why isn't common sense common? Did I hint at multiple failure modes? Is there anything an owner can do about any of this? 

 

 

I work from home. I'm not a busy garage - I don't see volume. Relying on what I personally see for numbers is NOT accurate. HOWEVER, rest assured the THOUSANDS of posts on professional auto technician forums tell a different story.

 

You are making assumptions and stating them as facts. You're seriously giving me a headache. Believe what you want. I'm done here.

[Grumpy Bear]

32 minutes ago, Jsdirt said:

You are making assumptions and stating them as facts. You're seriously giving me a headache. 

I've asked for facts. You say you can't supply facts and yet you insist you have insight into the commonality of the problem. Then state that I can read the "post" as my assurance. These "post" are also without reference to volume and support nothing of the sort. Not sure it is I who is making assumptions? You're actually defining what it means to make an assumption. Stating the gravity of a problem without any knowledge of reference. 

 

42 minutes ago, diyer2 said:

I think today's oils s can take the heat.

What can we do?

IMO shorter oil change intervals than the DIC or 15 k mile oil.

The interval IMO no more than 5 k miles.

I'll do 3 k mile intervals. My oil and filters are cheap insurance.

 

 

Hi Diyer!! How's the snow load today?

 

"Take the heat". Some can, I agree. Now...what do you think that means? If you think that there are oils today that are formulated to resist thermal oxidation better than the conventional 'dino' standard. I also agree. However if you believe that this means the laws that rule viscosity change with temperature are null and void because of that. We disagree. Oh they can slow an oil today from rapid thermal fracture that leads to viscosity loss or thickening and high temperature deposit formation. But that 20W at 300 F is about 2-3 cSt. About as light as room temperature WD-40. It isn't much heavier at 250 F. The viscosity relationship is only linier between 40 and 100 C. 

 

http://www.viscopedia.com/viscosity-tables/substances/sae-viscosity-grades/

 

We use to have 192 F thermostats (or lower) and a lot less motor load in terms of demand power density.  A daily driver hadn't much of an issue holding the bulk oil temperatures down under 212 F. Today normal operating temperature is 20 to 40 F over the water temperature and the water temperatures are 210 F in light load and 240 F + pulling a load. Viscosities for that same loads are now 1/3 of what they were for our beloved iron 350's.

 

Now ask yourself. How would you feel about pulling your 9,000 lb. travel trailer over Wolf Creek Pass with a 1968 C-10 powered by an iron 350 with a crankcase full of  0-W ? Because that's about what they are asking the new motors to do. It's actually lighter than 0W at load pulling operating temperatures. 

 

They thing missed often is that the motor doesn't care what the viscosity is on the label of the bottle or in a test rig in the lab. It responds to the actual temperature at the interface. These are my reasons for installing a 170 F thermostat, using Group V oils, changing every 5K and driving like Mr. Magoo. I run 5W20 in a 4.3 that has a call out for a 5W30 and my oils viscosity at the 180-190 F measured temperature it runs at is more viscous than 5W30 at the 245 F measured temperatures it use to run at on a warm day unloaded. They hydraulic viscosity needs are fulfilled, the AFM happy and the motor a good deal more protected. It ain't my first rodeo.  

 

This is a plain case of an unrelated truth seemingly supporting a well told lie. It's is, in fact, more thermally stable and it doesn't matter one iota because thermal stability hasn't a damn thing to do with heat related viscosity reduction until after the fact. It just sounds like it does and that is the effectiveness of this lie. Oh sir, and it is told boldly and defended with vigor. It's also crap. 

 

Lastly there is the issue of defining synthetic. Until the majority are telling the truth the fact remains the by law 'Blend' means as little as 5% and 'Full' can mean Group III. Only a handful of companies are willing to state content. More lies based on half truths. 

 

4 hours ago, bgbdwlf2500 said:

the main point I was trying to make with his comment is that he may be right, but only because people are going to draw out oil changes to 8, 10 12k miles. I use synthetic and still change it at 3k. as I said in my post now they've released an oil that's "good for a year" and there will be plenty of people that will believe it, I am not one of those people. changing oil is cheap insurance and is quick and easy, but slightly messy to do. the oil filter location could have been thought out a little more for sure 

Understand. But that wasn't the point I was making with that reply. If your going to state a thing as a fact it better have more support than a 'I believe it so'. Points of reference are demanded by both logic and sound scientific method. 

 

[diyer2]

Grumpy,

I'm not as educated as you about oil or a scientist.

All I know is all the vehicles I have owned or currently own have or will be driven for a long time.

Regular oil changes with an oil and filter that meet OEM spec have done me well.

I keep them stock and do the best maintenance.

No replacing rotors because the pads wore out and destroyed the rotor.

No no start due to a dead battery.

Drive line fluids changed regularly. 

ETC. ETC.

 

 

 

[Jsdirt]

3 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I've asked for facts. You say you can't supply facts and yet you insist you have insight into the commonality of the problem. Then state that I can read the "post" as my assurance. These "post" are also without reference to volume and support nothing of the sort. Not sure it is I who is making assumptions? You're actually defining what it means to make an assumption. Stating the gravity of a problem without any knowledge of reference. 

 

 

You're just chomping at the bit to "catch me in a lie", aren't you? I can see the drool through the monitor.  

 

It's become exhausting trying to explain myself ... but I'll make another attempt, and then this will be my final post on the subject. MY PERSONAL HANDS ON EXPERIENCE WITH THIS SYSTEM IS LIMITED. I've done ONE AFM REPAIR. 1 ... ONE ... that's it!! ONE  ... O ..... N .... E ....  I can just see you now squirming at your keyboard ready to pounce ... but take it easy now! You don't have to win or lose here! The problem isn't going away! I do ALOT of reading on all aspects of automotive repair, so I can stay ahead of the surprises they all pull on us. I've already stated that I've read countless posts from other professional techs on the multitude of ways AFM components fail. SO, you think I'm lying? Making this crap up? Why the hell would I, or anyone for that matter, go through the effort to do that??? You don't even have to be on a professional website - just do a Google search! There's ENDLESS stories on the subject there - many of them right here on GM-Trucks!

 

I would post links to the endless posts, but that is a violation of the website's policy. I'm not losing my membership to prove a point that you probably STILL wouldn't get anyway. In addition to that, you have to be a member .. so what good are the links to you? If your not working in the field, then there really isn't any reason to become one ... and you won't be able to anyway. You have to be, A: Employed in the field over 3 years, or, B: Be a tech student. That keeps all the b/s out of the site, and it works very well.

 

I've seen the pictures, I've read the posts, and I've seen a few of these at different shops around the area undergoing AFM related repairs. Don't believe me? I really don't give 2 shits. No amount of explaining will make it sink in, and nothing will change! It is for this exact reason GM will continue to roll out piles of manure that you guys will willingly lap up for $80 LARGE  ... and have ZERO incentive to change. They're laughing all the way to the bank, probably calling us "a bunch of morons" on the way.

 

I still can't believe there are people out there defending this practice! No wonder the world is in the state of affairs it's in .... 

 

I've said my piece. I can't explain it in any other way that you could possibly understand. I think the best way for you to see what I'm talking about is to find a '07-'12 Silverado or Sierra with roughly 50k miles on it, and drive it yourself (preferably an '09, since those seem to be the problem children), and let us know how great the truck is, IF you make it to 140k.

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

Jsdirt: Take a breath brother. I called no one a liar nor even implied it. In fact I recall stating I valued both your tech and you writing. 

 

I also said, failures without a reference point are not proof that determines prevalence. I don't care how many there are. There can be thousands of post. There are millions of AFM units in service. Until those two are correlated it means zip. I'm not looking for your head. I'm looking for the truth. It's okay if you don't know.

 

In fact I'm being more that fair. Ever hear, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Just because you don't have the information doesn't mean the problem isn't there. I never denied it was a problem. It means we don't have a feel for it's prevalence and until we do it is ill advised to start yelling "FIRE" in a theater. It's kind of what your doing when you make a claim you can't support with rational statistical proofs. 

 

If the truth is 1 in a 1,000, I'm not concerned. If it's even 250 per 1,000 I'm not just concerned, I'm mad. How many ways can I say that? 

 

I'm not sticking up for GM. I'm sticking up for scientific method and rational conclusions from data. I don't hang people because I think their guilty. Yes that gets me taken advantage of and no I'm not good with that. But my reputation is more important to me than bloodletting. Now exhale. 

 

Diyer2: Sounds like a solid program. My father is your carbon copy in this regard and it serves him well. He has more 400,000+ motors than anyone I personally know. Keep it up!! I follow his model when I toss Red Line Oil at 5K and for the same reasons you do. It just works and cheaper than a new motor or even a truck. 

 

[mookdoc6]

All right boys I am not getting involved as you know my stance.....the 900's had issues with Lifters/rings/springs etc....

 

I called my friend who works at a high volume Cadillac dealer and by the way is FERD guy ASE Certified and this what I asked......What is your professional opinion on why the lifters fail in GM engines?  Replied, "sourced parts"  I know because I have to call in the numbers off the the Cylinder heads and if it lands during a known build #/date etc. I go from there.  I asked how many and he said, "years ago the previous generations had known multiple issues early on seemed like a couple week"  What about the Ecotec3's completly different story....Trans,Trans we don't even open the engines up a couple for rings and that has been it.

 

So there you go somebody who works on this crap everyday......

[Grumpy Bear]

17 hours ago, mookdoc6 said:

All right boys I am not getting involved as you know my stance.....the 900's had issues with Lifters/rings/springs etc....

 

I called my friend who works at a high volume Cadillac dealer and by the way is FERD guy ASE Certified and this what I asked......What is your professional opinion on why the lifters fail in GM engines?  Replied, "sourced parts"  I know because I have to call in the numbers off the the Cylinder heads and if it lands during a known build #/date etc. I go from there.  I asked how many and he said, "years ago the previous generations had known multiple issues early on seemed like a couple week"  What about the Ecotec3's completly different story....Trans,Trans we don't even open the engines up a couple for rings and that has been it.

 

So there you go somebody who works on this crap everyday......

Thank you Mookdoc6!!

 

So it was an issue for a short period of time over some 'sourced parts' and GM has the records to identify a few week span. More importantly, they took care of it as Jsdirts experience, "once fixed it's fixed" seems to uphold. Told ya Jsdirt I wasn't looking for your head. C'mon man...smile...

 

That isn't a 'sky is falling" situation. Doesn't rise to the level of a conspiracy. But a great example of how a situation gets  'blown out of proportion' with some cyber help and how that lingers on ones reputation. Don't you just love the internet? 

 

Ecotec3 sounds like it's going to do just fine. 

[j-ten-ner]

GM always claims that they put zillions of test miles on a new model truck.

That should be scientific enough and generate a lot of statistics.

 

All I care about is the truck I'm currently driving.

Second truck of the same generation, same problem. That's plenty of statistic and science for me.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

[Grumpy Bear]

2 hours ago, j-ten-ner said:

GM always claims that they put zillions of test miles on a new model truck.

That should be scientific enough and generate a lot of statistics.

 

All I care about is the truck I'm currently driving.

Second truck of the same generation, same problem. That's plenty of statistic and science for me.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

Wait a minute. You bought one that you had some undisclosed issue with you don't feel is relevant to share...and then went out and bough a second one just like it? Reeeeeaaaaally? You hated it so much and it was such a big problem that you bought a second one? What the.....!! 

 

And wrap that all up under the heading of science?  

 

Smells of stockyard on a hot day in Oklahoma. Or just irrational. I don't do irrational 'me too' babble. 

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Grumpy Bear

[mookdoc6]

16 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Thank you Mookdoc6!!

 

So it was an issue for a short period of time over some 'sourced parts' and GM has the records to identify a few week span. More importantly, they took care of it as Jsdirts experience, "once fixed it's fixed" seems to uphold. Told ya Jsdirt I wasn't looking for your head. C'mon man...smile...

 

That isn't a 'sky is falling" situation. Doesn't rise to the level of a conspiracy. But a great example of how a situation gets  'blown out of proportion' with some cyber help and how that lingers on ones reputation. Don't you just love the internet? 

 

Ecotec3 sounds like it's going to do just fine. 

No, problem!  Guy is real sharp tech and does not hold back on bashing GM technology which he claims they don't have and he also claims the LS block was stolen from FERD but anyway that is what I have to battle with.....Nonsense!

[diyer2]

On 1/16/2018 at 6:16 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

Jsdirt: Take a breath brother. I called no one a liar nor even implied it. In fact I recall stating I valued both your tech and you writing. 

 

I also said, failures without a reference point are not proof that determines prevalence. I don't care how many there are. There can be thousands of post. There are millions of AFM units in service. Until those two are correlated it means zip. I'm not looking for your head. I'm looking for the truth. It's okay if you don't know.

 

In fact I'm being more that fair. Ever hear, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Just because you don't have the information doesn't mean the problem isn't there. I never denied it was a problem. It means we don't have a feel for it's prevalence and until we do it is ill advised to start yelling "FIRE" in a theater. It's kind of what your doing when you make a claim you can't support with rational statistical proofs. 

 

If the truth is 1 in a 1,000, I'm not concerned. If it's even 250 per 1,000 I'm not just concerned, I'm mad. How many ways can I say that? 

 

I'm not sticking up for GM. I'm sticking up for scientific method and rational conclusions from data. I don't hang people because I think their guilty. Yes that gets me taken advantage of and no I'm not good with that. But my reputation is more important to me than bloodletting. Now exhale. 

 

Diyer2: Sounds like a solid program. My father is your carbon copy in this regard and it serves him well. He has more 400,000+ motors than anyone I personally know. Keep it up!! I follow his model when I toss Red Line Oil at 5K and for the same reasons you do. It just works and cheaper than a new motor or even a truck. 

 

Thanks Grumpy.

Pay me now or pay me later comes to mind.

Well maintained, not abused it will last if you didn't get a lemon IMO.

I have witnessed first hand people who mistreat the vehicles and then complain that it's a piece of junk. Never considering they had a hand in it's problems. 

 

 

[arzinet]

Interesting conversation. I had a 2007 Suburban with the 5.3 that I bought new and was planning to drive forever. Filled it with synthetic from the first oil change (usually Pennzoil Platinum, but sometimes Mobil 1). I know they're not "real" synthetic, but close enough I figured. Followed the OCI as per the display, which resulted in oil changes every 8,000 to 13,000 km (5,000 - 8,000 miles.)

 

I towed with it, in the mountains a lot, but tried not to abuse it. Changed all the other fluids regularly, never saw the coolant temp. gauge come up above normal, and only saw the tranny temps get a bit over 100 Celcius (212 Fahrenheit) on the longest climbs. I think 110 (230 F) was the highest I ever saw.

 

Anyway, had the lifters fail at 70,000 km (43,000 miles), thankfully just after we got home from a long trip towing through the mountains. I'd heard of the issue beforehand, so it wasn't a total shock to me. The dealer was great, and everything fixed under warranty, so I wasn't too unhappy. The truck was fine for another few years and 50,000 km, then it got totalled in an accident.

 

Replaced it with a 2011 Yukon XL 2500, and am kind of glad to have the old-school 6.0 now. Plan on keeping this one forever, as well. Still using synthetic, and still changing it according to the computer, but I'm starting to think maybe it wouldn't hurt to not go past 10,000 km between changes, regardless of what the computer says. Suppose I could get an oil analysis done, but I haven't yet.

 

My other car is a VW, and it has its share of known issues as well. Worst one is a cam chain tensioner that is known to go bad, resulting in major engine damage (interference engine.) If you believe the internet, it will happen to every engine sooner or later, but of course there are no hard and fast numbers.